Both in denotation and connotation the verboten word was different in Twain's day than it is in ours. The fact that 95.83% of NPR readers think that it is wrong to publish a bowlderized version leads me to believe that they should do just that. In its purest form the book will be unassigned and unread. While they're at it, they should also cut out the ending. The ending is beyond stupid. It actively subverts the grand passages that come earlier in the book.

So, does this mean that 4.17% of NPR readers are black? Or that 4.17% are white liberals?

(*Ducks*)

------

And on another note: Why is it that the only historical (let's be honest, even in a fictional work, the use of the "N" word is historical in that it reflected how people spoke at the time) revisionings I can think of off the top of my head are this and Stalin's removal of people from photographs? Does that say something about me? Or about the notion of "sanitizing" historical representations?

This is the way they lived and thought. Not pretty, but you begin to appreciate your own times a bit more.

And the NPR crowd are the people who are ready to scream about the First Amendment (as if they ever read dead, 100 year old documents) and censorship. Let's all keep this in the back of our minds for the next time the Lefties want to complain about Free Speech

I was a-trembling, because I'd got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself:"All right, then, I'll GO to hell."Adventures of Huckleberry FinnChapter 30.

I know what you'll say. You'll say it's dirty Low-down business; but what if it is? - I'm low down; and I'm agoing to steal him, and I want you to keep mum and not let on. Will you?

You don't know about me without you have read a book by the name of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer; but that ain't no matter. That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the truth, mainly. There was things which he stretched, but mainly he told the truth.

The "editor" of this new improved version of the two iconic works removed the offensive word the 228 times it was used. Better still he replaced the offensive word injun with Indian. Mercy. Some editing job for a PhD from UC Berkley teaching at a backwater in Alabama. I suggested he turn, as a good left should, to history where he could correct to his delight. Or art where a pen knife could work wonders in the Renaissance section of the Met, Lefty filth.

From what I've read, Michael, the guy has spent many of years of his life studying Twain and the value of his books. "Huckleberry Finn" is number five on the banned book list in this country, and he felt it was time to do something about that in order for more kids to once again have the opportunity to read Twain's work.

Jim: What did you just call me?Huck Griffin: I thought that was your name.Jim: That is our word. You have no right to use it.Huck Griffin: Hey hey hey, I'm cool, I'm cool, no problem![pause]Huck Griffin: So, could you pass me the oar, 'n-word Jim'?Jim: Thank you.

That's nothing. The new version of "Schoolhouse Rock" is all about the environment. Truly puke-worthy.

I have a feeling that in today's overly PC environment, the original History segments of "Schoolhouse Rock" would never be aired today. Way too patriotic and views westward expansion as a positive thing.

My young daughters love it, though, and I enjoyed explaining what the Suffrage 'toon was all about and how awesome it is that they will be able to vote when they grow up.

I don't know about you, but the Shakespeare works we studied in high school had been scrupulously edited for sexual content (of which there is quite a lot). Ditto for Greek plays.

This is a comparatively minor change. Twain used the word because he was a naturalistic writer, not because he thought it was important that the audience recognize that the characters are a bunch of racists. Trust me -- people can figure that one out without the hint.

I don't know about you, but the Shakespeare works we studied in high school had been scrupulously edited for sexual content (of which there is quite a lot). Ditto for Greek plays.

And you're obviously poorer in knowledge. You cannot possibly absorb the essence of Shakespeare or Sophocles after the gatekeepers of "decency" alter their works to protect your tender sensibilities.

In high school, I got my Shakespear and Sophocles straight, no chaser; sex, violence and all. I reveled in it and learned, unlike you.

This is a comparatively minor change.

Oh, really? In whose judgement? Yours? What right have you to pass judgement on the work of a literary giant like Twain? Simpering, quivering cowards such as yourself aren't fit to read a comic book, let alone Twain.

Twain used the word because he was a naturalistic writer, not because he thought it was important that the audience recognize that the characters are a bunch of racists.

I don't know how you could make a classic less desirable to read than to commit such editing. This especially applies to the age group that should be reading it for the first time and will now consider it as tempting as making their beds.

To be well educated and then spend your time in pursuit of such epic failure is ...... well educated by modern university mores.

And you're obviously poorer in knowledge. You cannot possibly absorb the essence of Shakespeare or Sophocles after the gatekeepers of "decency" alter their works to protect your tender sensibilities.

The Southern Baptists I grew up surrounded by thought differently. Similarly, they frowned on Bridge to Terebithia for its positive portrayal of an atheist character. I'm not saying censorship is a good thing, just pointing out that people who think bowdlerization of great works of literature as some sort of PC-inspired modern phenomenon apparently went to school in a different America than I did.

What right have you to pass judgement on the work of a literary giant like Twain?

A reader who cannot form his own opinion of a book's quality hasn't actually learned how to read yet.

Simpering, quivering cowards such as yourself

Don't get your panties in a bunch, Mojo. I already said that the change was a stupid idea. Apparently it is insufficient to roll my eyes at this; I must also work myself into a frothing rage at the SHEER! AUDACITY! OF EDITING! TWAIN!

The change is, as I said, silly, but has no more significance than changing Jim's name to John. Take this passage, from the link you posted:

Similarly when Aunt Sally asks if anyone was hurt in a reported riverboat explosion, and Huck himself answers "No'm. Killed a nigger," she replies, "Well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt." The whole force of the passage lies in casual acceptance of the African American's dehumanised status

... because, gee, high school students will NEVER figure out that dehumanized status if the word "slave" is used instead.

The damning bit of that passage isn't the use of the n-word, but the "No'm" which precedes it and the "sometimes people get hurt" that follows it. From your reaction one would think Twain was incapable of conveying that a character is unenlightened without naming him "Eville T. McRacist".

I think it's perfectly fine to publish an edition of Huckleberry Finn with the n-word removed.

Huckleberry Finn is public domain. You can get the original just about anywhere you want. If editing it allows for more readers then, that's a good thing. Twain's point wasn't the word, it was the story.

On the other hand, I'm a huge Mark Twain fan and I find Huckleberry Finn to be the least interesting of his books. It's Twain for people who don't really like Twain, I think... which is a lot of English teachers, using Twain to keep kids from every liking Twain on their own.

I'd much rather see more people read a Tramp Abroad or Roughing It, or a selection of his short stories (like Captain Stormfields visit to Heaven or Some Learned Fables for Good Old Boys and Girls). Shoot, I think even Connecticut Yankee in King Arthurs Court is much more interesting and readable, and amusing, than Huckleberry Finn.

Penny: Huck Finn is number 5 on the banned list of books in the United States because liberals have made African Americans so thin skinned that they cannot read a book, a work of fiction, without having a fucking fainting spell. This guy is doing the cause of literature or anti-censorship no favors by this stupid act of hubris riding on the high horse of political correctness. You goddamn lefties do not give one shit about banned books or the freedom of speech.

Paddy O; But what if I object to the story part. Is it ok for me to change the endings because, you know, I might find it more pleasant? The world has gone fucking insane with this p.c. bullshit. Stark raving nuts.

I've got a better idea. Why don't we just read Maya Angelou? Why don't we make all these little boys and girls know that Maya Angelou is the greatest writer ever? We could put May Angelou books inside Mark Twain covers, or Faulkner, or Tolstoy covers so then all the little children would have read all the great books.

To whitewash is to gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data.[1] It is especially used in the context of corporations, governments or other organizations... and now literature.

Is this a joke? Its not April Fools yet.. Not even the Onion would come up with this.

Michael and Lem, I don't think it's a matter of everything or nothing. There are boundaries.

We see this on television all the time. I can't count how many movies I saw growing up, or more recently, with changed language or deleted scenes. Sometimes it's even comical the kinds of phrases they'd put in the mouths of people saying something entirely different.

At the same time, there were a lot of movies I first saw and liked on television. I'm very glad the broadcasters played the movie, exposing me to good drama, comedy, or just some nice entertainment.

So, there's a line, but I don't think that line is drawn simply at what is certainly objectionable language -- a word that is, as far as I know, the only word not allowed here on Althouse.

It does make me think that "Saying a Word without Saying a Word" would have been another good Twain story.

".. because, gee, high school students will NEVER figure out that dehumanized status if the word "slave" is used instead."

A perfect example of why this should not be done. Not all "niggers" were slaves. No one should assume they can rewrite someones writing, simply because they THINK they know his meaning, or worse, disagree with it. It's arrogant, and is only tolerated because the author is dead and can't come punch the editor in the nose.

Paddy O: Right, it is a matter of boundaries. And the author would remind you not to cross the boundary of his words. The author is dead so it is left to those who might give a flying shit about the slippery slope created by helpful people like the "editor" of these classics who believes Twain's boundary a fiction.

And, oh the horror of Mark Twain crossing the very boundary set by this very blog's proprietor. If only the editor had known he had that going for him as well. Do you, perchance, sit on a library board that has failed to provide the imprimatur to Mr. Twain?

Penny's list of the most banned books included two of John Steinbeck's best works. Is there a soul so dead that he cannot allow others to read John Steinbeck's magnificent prose? I agree with Paddy O that Huck Finn is not as entertaining as Twain's other books. My favorite is Life on the Mississippi.

I can think of no other example of political correctness that is a greater affront to African Americans than this stunt. If that is what we think of them, our brothers and sisters, I am afraid for us all.

somebody needs to wipe that damned smirk off of that bitch mona lisa's face ! hey...it'll still be gud art, right? i just won't have to feel like she's laughing at me anymore. i got feelings too ya know.

btw I'm not saying there ought to be a law.. (that would be worst if such a feat were possible).. what I'm saying is that the additioned book should be rejected in the market place like it has bed bugs or something..

We should convince people, as diplomatically as possible, of the gargantuan error that we would be encouraging by even acknowledging the existence of such a grotesque wolf in sheep's clothing, passing off as the work of one of Americas literary giants.

(I wanted to make sure I fit in there as many cliches and bad writing as possible.. in the hopes that you people can begin to see and understand the significance of the enterprise we are discussing here)

So far as subverting Huckleberry Finn goes, Twain did a pretty good job with the lousy ending he tacked on to his greatest work....I agree with everyone's reservations about political correctness, but I do not think any high school teacher would wish to tread the dangerous waters of assigning this book to a racially mixed class. Life is short, and The Red Badge of Courage is also a great book. Beyond this, is the fact that most of the kids are only going to read the Cliff Notes anyway. Most teachers will dodge the problem by simply not assigning the book. Is it better to be unread and authentic than bowlderized and read?.....I think people with a real taste for literature will seek out the original version, just as they sought out the real Shakespeare back then.....The King James Bible is one of the high water marks of English literature, but when I read the Bible for narrative as opposed to poetry, I seek out the newest version. I think we should give Twain the same consideration we show the Bible.

The law of unintended consequences is an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system always creates unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.[2][3][4][5] Akin to Murphy's law, it is commonly used as a wry or humorous warning against the hubristic belief that humans can fully control the world around them. Many fields of study in the sciences and humanities embrace this concept, including economics, history, philosophy, political science, and sociology.

Huckleberry Finn is public domain.=============I suppose if something is deleted, then things can be added.Think of the progessive agenda advancing powers some careful rewriting can do to all those fine classics now in the public domain.

"Last of the Mohicans" rewritten so that Magua is a disaffected community organizer of the Hurons. A resentful halfbreed Indian-Black who justly wants the pussies if not the blood of Colonel Monroe as race-atonement.Meanwhile, we learn that the Mohicans are in decline because of the joy of homosexual sex being widely embraced. The Mohicans are mainly known for their fabulous attire and canoe decorations. But the novel is devoted to showing how gays are great fighters, belying the bigoted Huron and French slurs that the gay fighters prefer to decorate their lodges over manlier duties,

Key to this would be Hawkeye, kidnapped as a boy by the kindly Pederast Chief Chingachgook. Clearing up a key mystery Hawkeyes odd given name, readers learn the chief nurtured him and taught him the Indian ways...but Natty Bumppo was the Chiefs special name for what he taught Hawkeye to do at night. Readers learn Hawkeye's real name was William Atherton Mobley, and his real father was a smug white who would have never taught Hawkeye as Chingachgook did in the classic, as in Greek, warrior-protege relationship.

When old enough, and complete in his day and night tutelege and because some younger chickens had arrived - the chief passed Hawkeye and the right to do the "Natty Bumppo" with him, onto his fey son, Uncas. Who entered into an Alexander-Haephestus type of Greek reationship.

The 3rd part of the book is the two mighty gay warrior brothers, bonded in blood as well as other comingled body fluids, seeking to rescue the Monroe daughters from the ravages of the dark Magua penis-wielding supremacist because they want to be BFFs to the daughters and chat with them, like forever.

===============Next up. Steinbeck is still under copyright, but it would make more sense and be more educational if the Joads more properly refected the context of enlightened thought in 1940. You add a lot of Joads and other oppressed workers calling themselves "comarade" and talking about how the workers in Father Stalins collectives run by government beat the shantytowns. And the book ends with Tom Joad not on the run, but as head of the California "Workers Collective for FDR"

William: "I do not think any high school teacher would wish to tread the dangerous waters of assigning this book to a racially mixed class."

Actually, William, my wife, a high school English teacher, has taught Huck Finn many times to racially mixed classes. She addresses Twain's use of the n-word up front. She asks the students to let her know privately if they have any concerns.

She does this for two reasons--to be sure no black students are offended and to make sure no white students are so inhibited they can't speak freely.

She's never encountered anything awkward and no student (or parent) has ever complained.

William: "I do not think any high school teacher would wish to tread the dangerous waters of assigning this book to a racially mixed class."

Actually, William, my wife, a high school English teacher, has taught Huck Finn many times to racially mixed classes. She addresses Twain's use of the n-word up front. She asks the students to let her know privately if they have any concerns.

She does this for two reasons--to be sure no black students are offended and to make sure no white students are so inhibited they can't speak freely.

She's never encountered anything awkward and no student (or parent) has ever complained.

I think many of you are not acknowledging the real difficulty of trying to teach Huckleberry Finn to a real class of 2011 middle school students. How do you get the students to get past this taboo word that appears all the time? How much time are you going to spend putting the language into context? Has that become the only focus of the book?

Most schools are taking the easy answer and teaching another book. Others use anthologies with only excerpts. I doubt that Bowdlerization will be effective, but it is a legitimate attempt to solve a real problem. It's just one of the many ways that we cut, paste, edit, and remix literature when we try to teach it.

Just as a side point - using the Bowdlerized text in the classroom isn't censorship if the unabridged version is available in the library. The best effect of the Bowdlerized text would be to make the unabridged version forbidden fruit.

NPR people hate it because of their idolatry of art and the artist. I don't think changing a text is that big of a deal; though I would want a change from nigerian to slave to be noted in a preface. I object to the use of "slave," however, since that does not even connote a racial distinction, except in a way to create the prejudice that only blacks were slaves, and that that form of plantation slavery was the only thing worthy of the name.

"I think it's perfectly fine to publish an edition of Huckleberry Finn with the n-word removed.

Huckleberry Finn is public domain."

That only makes it legal.

Huckleberry Finn was written at a specific time and in a specific context. I appreciate the difficulties that the language chosen creates, but changing it to something appropriate for modern times and context is a significant change to the book. Especially since the book distinguishes between labels and reality itself.

Part of the value of teaching the classics is putting history in context. How we are like our ancestors and how we have changed. In addition to the mechanics of prose, dialogue, storytelling, etc. that goes into discussing literature. Twain's language tells us something about Twain. Just as Lovecraft's language tells us unpleasant truths about his views on race, but also makes him a great horror writer.

I suspect that the bowlderized version will not catch on beyond the initial wave of publicity. If you're going to teach Mark Twain, you'll teach unvarnished Mark Twain. Or you'll choose a different book as there's no shortage of great books.

This is the way they lived and thought. Not pretty, but you begin to appreciate your own times a bit more.

Indeed. It doesn’t make any sense to sanitize history. Read it or don’t but don’t white wash it.

The Red and The White

Interesting, just added to my Netflix queue!

Speaking of censorship, I just watched a really interesting documentary on a filmmaker called Veit Harlan who made films under Nazi Germany, in particular a film called “The Jew Suss” that was banned for years and years after WWII as a propaganda film, so much so that his kids never saw it until 10/20 years ago when it was unbanned.